Towards a transcultural history of diplomacy

Transcription

1 Towards a transcultural history of diplomacy A Core-to-Core Global History Collaborative workshop The University of Tokyo Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia 9 11 December 2016 Questions and contact: transculturaldiplomacy@gmail.com

2 Day 1: 9 Dec Introduction: Lisa HELLMAN and Birgit TREMML-WERNER Keynote Speech: MATSUKATA Fuyuko (The University of Tokyo, Historiographical Research Institute): Kokusho and treaty making in early modern Eurasian diplomatic relations Panel I Information Networks and Communication Discussant: Antonella ROMANO (École des hautes études en sciences sociales) Language skills and access to particular information has been part of both the success and the failures of early modern diplomatic contacts. This panel aims at analyzing how access to certain information and the use of certain languages affected bi- and multilateral communication in different Asian and European transcultural settings. When approached as part of a global comparison, what made language work and not work in early modern diplomacy? What role did knowledge circulation and translation play in this type of transcultural contact? Kapil RAJ (École des hautes études en sciences sociales), Portuguese as a Multiway Diplomatic Language between Malabar Kingdoms and Europeans in the 17 th and 18 th Centuries Lisa HELLMAN (The University of Tokyo), Drawing the line: intercultural interactions in the mapping of the Central Asian borderlands Sophie HOLM (University of Helsinki),...the King answers by himself in Swedish The Languages of Diplomacy in 18 th Century Sweden Panel II The Role of Symbolism and Ceremonies Discussant: YAMAMOTO Koji (The University of Tokyo) Ceremonial and symbolic actions were pivotal to early modern cultures in many parts of the world. This panel aims at analysing culturally specific means of diplomatic interaction by introducing examples of simple and elaborate ceremony and discussing socio-cultural dynamics reflecting in the the materiality and symbolic value of objects. However, were correspondence and processes of representation somehow different when part of a diplomatic encounter? Furthermore, does our view of the role of symbolism and ceremonies change when being part of a global comparison? Rémi DEWIÈRE (Université Paris 1), Ismael begged Osman to give him a few christians, Diplomatic gifts and economic negotiations between Tripoli and the Borno Sultanate (16 th -17 th c.)

3 Michael TALBOT (University of Greenwich), Negotiators, not diplomats: Ambassadors and the notion of friendship in Ottoman-British relations Carla TRONU (Nanzan University), Religion and Early Modern Intercultural Diplomacy between the Iberian Kingdoms and Japan MATSUI Hiroe (Ochanomizu Women s University), How to discuss 'Japanese history in a global context?: Using diplomatic contacts in Germany for the Empress Shōken s western court dress Panel III Transcultural Diplomacy from Below Discussant: SANO Mayuko (International Research Center for Japanese Studies) Early modern state interactions were carried out by a diversity of actors, including those who had never been formally appointed by the state to do so. This approach to diplomatic contacts does not completely exclude the state, or state-interventions. This panel stresses the significance of individual agency and human dimension as the main characteristics of pre-nineteenth-century foreign relations. It does, however, highlight the multiplicity of actors that could potentially be involved in diplomatic contacts, and how this was a diversity that did not strictly follow state borders. Joachim ÖSTLUND (Lund University), Swedish ransom diplomacy in Ottoman North Africa, Sari NAUMAN (Gothenborg University), Farmer and diplomat towards a broadening of concepts in early modern time Ana BUSQUETS (Universitat Oberta de Catalunya), Different aims, different embassies: Fujian and Manila seventeenth century diplomatic contacts Felicia GOTTMANN (University of Dundee), Glocal Politics and Transcultural Diplomacy: A Prussian East Indiaman in 1750s Cape Verde

4 Day 2: 10 Dec 2016 Panel IV Trans-cultural Treaty Making and Legal Aspects Discussant: Robert ESKILDEN (International Christian University) In the early modern era, and around the world, for two states to sign a treaty could mean very different things and also have very different consequences. Trans-cultural treaty making depended on the understanding of legal concepts and was challenged by semantic and conceptual differences of rulership and power relations. This panel will discuss specific cultural dimensions and how they shaped international practices of treaty negotiations. By comparing and contrasting different case studies, how can we further our understanding of early modern treaties as such? FUKUOKA Mariko (National Museum of Japanese History), Comparing Japanese and Chinese Diplomacy of the Transitional Period from Early Modern to Modern: Treaty- Negotiations in with the Prussian Embassy Michael FACIUS (Freie Universität Berlin), Whose country? Satsuma diplomatic culture in the Anglo-Satsuma war António VASCONCELES DE SALDANHA (University of Macau), Diplomatic dynamics in the first age of Western Maritime Empires in Asia. Portuguese diplomacy as the matrix for East-West diplomatic practices in Asia in the 16 th -17 th centuries. SHIOYA Akifumi (University of Tsukuba), Reconsideration of the Treaty of Kulja (1851): Imperial Russian Diplomacy in a Eurasian Context Panel V Conflicting Actors Discussant: SHIMADA Ryuto (The University of Tokyo) To be sure, not everyone had the same aims with diplomatic contacts. This panel addresses the means and motivations behind diplomatic contacts between actors of differing ranks and the impact of such practices on the broader development of an international law. What happened when contrasting goals clashed, for example those between commercial and state interests? In addition, what agency did individual actors have to change these contacts? Did the conflicts and agencies differ around the world? Dorothée GOETZE (Bonn University), On behalf of the dynasty: Swedish and Hessian- Kassel relations in the 1720s Cátia ANTUNES (Leiden University), Dutch-Portuguese Diplomatic Encounters, : Exchanges, Sovereignty and World Peace Leos MÜLLER (Stockholm University), Conflict between Diplomacy and Mercantile Interest. Sweden s Neutrality and Shipping c

5 Panel VI Conflicting Diplomatic Ideas Discussant: OTA Atsushi (Keio University) Behind the diversity of contacts presented in diplomatic case studies lay diverse conceptualisations of states, territories and borders. When differing ideas came into contact with each other, historiorians tend to present them as clashes, but they could also be seen as interactions and exchanges. In early modern diplomacy, what difference in the view of the transcultural contact itself can be discerned? What can a global comparison bring to ideas such as neutrality, legitimacy, representation and state interaction? Birgit TREMML-WERNER (University of Zurich), Emblematic Moments in Early Modern Hispano-Japanese Diplomatic Exchange Csaba OLÁH (International Christian University), Reshaping of traditional diplomatic patterns in th century China and Japan OKAMOTO Makoto (The University of Tokyo), TBAL Panel VII A Common Terminology? Chair: HANEDA Masashi (The University of Tokyo) In this final panel, we hope to discuss semiotic and terminological inconsistencies. We all struggle with terms and categories when discussing and disseminating our research. Further challenges arise when confronting original terms in the languages of our source material with the language of academia. Therefore we designed one panel to discuss a global vocabulary of diplomacy. If there was such a thing, what terms would be in it, and how would they be defined? In this panel, we will return to the terms singled out by the presenters as being particularly crucial or problematic, and use them as a basis for a general discussion on the terminology of early modern diplomatic contacts.